Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

[D2D]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Not saying that anyone should have to put up with this, but some just have a thicker skin.

I don't have any numbers to support this, but it does seem that more coaches of women's teams have been getting fired for abusive behavior towards their players than coaches of men's teams. I'm not sure why this seems to be the case, whether it's more due to:
(a) more male players typically have "thicker skin" and maybe don't take such behavior so personally, or they learn to shrug it off, or
(b) more male coaches who have abusive personalities end up coaching women rather than men.

 

[PuckRush]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

I don't have any numbers to support this, but it does seem that more coaches of women's teams have been getting fired for abusive behavior towards their players than coaches of men's teams. I'm not sure why this seems to be the case, whether it's more due to:
(a) more male players typically have "thicker skin" and maybe don't take such behavior so personally, or they learn to shrug it off, or
(b) more male coaches who have abusive personalities end up coaching women rather than men.

This is a great observation and question. I think it's much deeper than you suggest. There is significant research on the difference between how males and females bully and react to bullying. We also have to take into account the physical intimidation difference between the bully victimizing a 5'4", 145 lbs female versus a 6'2", 235 lbs male player.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

I don't have any numbers to support this, but it does seem that more coaches of women's teams have been getting fired for abusive behavior towards their players than coaches of men's teams. I'm not sure why this seems to be the case, whether it's more due to:
(a) more male players typically have "thicker skin" and maybe don't take such behavior so personally, or they learn to shrug it off, or
(b) more male coaches who have abusive personalities end up coaching women rather than men.

I'm inclined to think option A. Boys tend to have thicker skin and more "bravado". More often than not they tend to focus on winning and competition, and let the other things bother them less. That is of course a generalization that does not apply to all. And don't get me wrong, I'm strongly against the strong arm type tactics of coaching as described in one of these articles. It should have no place with sports. It might have been "acceptable" many moons ago, but should not be tolerated in this day and age. There are many much better more effective ways to motive and lead. Ruling by instilling fear is being like being a "coward".

 

[96IllinoisDad]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

This is a great observation and question. I think it's much deeper than you suggest. There is significant research on the difference between how males and females bully and react to bullying. We also have to take into account the physical intimidation difference between the bully victimizing a 5'4", 145 lbs female versus a 6'2", 235 lbs male player.

You may want to talk to Theo Fluery among others. Bullys/predators exist everywhere. Men/women - boys/girls are all victims.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Another way to phrase "thicker skin" is "not really listening to you so you have to scream at them to get their attention."

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Another way to phrase "thicker skin" is "not really listening to you so you have to scream at them to get their attention."

this would be true of males, and that's the problem, if you coach females the same way as you do males you are going to have problems
you have to remember, women are the same as men only when they want to be, and getting yelled at isn't one of them

 

[Rightnut]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

It turns out that my disgust was not contrived and ridiculous. It is likely that these kids went through hell. I wish they "whined" a long time ago. Read the link below.

It seemed to me that common sense would dictate that Ted Knight should not have insinuated that the players were the problem. That was an insensitive and careless. Rightnut underlining the point by saying "boo hoo" to the players was equally inconsiderate. I really don't understand why others on this board stayed quiet. I hope we have learned something here.

http://q30television.com/2015/04/14...use-ex-quinnipiac-coach-rick-seeley-of-abuse/

Apparently you can't see the forest through your tears for all of these players. The point was that none of them likely care or are getting too worked up about what Ted Knight says on a message board. He has a right to be insensitive if he wants without you trying to suppress his free speech. It has nothing to do what is going on with them at Q.

As far as Seeley is concerned, he seems to have a lot of problems and as someone pointed out, I am surprised that this hasn't come out earlier. He should not be coaching, but at the same time, I am a bit skeptical of any top athlete who pees their pants when they get yelled at.

 

[KTDC]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

As far as Seeley is concerned, he seems to have a lot of problems and as someone pointed out, I am surprised that this hasn't come out earlier. He should not be coaching, but at the same time, I am a bit skeptical of any top athlete who pees their pants when they get yelled at.

Maybe that isn't the point.
Two common things I've heard from people who coach girls and women's hockey are:
1-the players care a lot about their relationships with their teammates, probably more than boys/mens teams
2-it is important that the players feel their coach cares about them as people

Peeing is extreme but maybe this player didn't pee her pants because she was being yelled at, but because she was being terrorized. You know, if Seeley was being extremely harsh and intense, and the player felt her relationship with him was important.

The tradition of male athletics having harsh coaching tactics is long and deeply embedded. Listen to Mark Johnson talk about Herb Brooks and he usually makes it clear Brooks was 'not a nice guy'. Mark Johnson tends to understate. Coaching has become more player friendly since the 70's but that tradition is still there.

The tradition spills over into women's sports, but it really probably shouldn't. The coaches may have to learn how to set their demands, and develop toughness, and make the hard calls and decisions in a different way.

 

[Rightnut]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Maybe that isn't the point.
Two common things I've heard from people who coach girls and women's hockey are:
1-the players care a lot about their relationships with their teammates, probably more than boys/mens teams
2-it is important that the players feel their coach cares about them as people

Peeing is extreme but maybe this player didn't pee her pants because she was being yelled at, but because she was being terrorized. You know, if Seeley was being extremely harsh and intense, and the player felt her relationship with him was important.

The tradition of male athletics having harsh coaching tactics is long and deeply embedded. Listen to Mark Johnson talk about Herb Brooks and he usually makes it clear Brooks was 'not a nice guy'. Mark Johnson tends to understate. Coaching has become more player friendly since the 70's but that tradition is still there.

The tradition spills over into women's sports, but it really probably shouldn't. The coaches may have to learn how to set their demands, and develop toughness, and make the hard calls and decisions in a different way.

I completely agree with your point. Women need to be coached differently. I think all the research as well as the anecdotal evidence backs that up. Old school coaching is on its way out for both sexes. I just have a hard time believing that incident occurred as stated, and if it did, which would be evidence of a very extreme situation, nothing was ever raised about it before.

 

[PuckRush]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Apparently you can't see the forest through your tears for all of these players. The point was that none of them likely care or are getting too worked up about what Ted Knight says on a message board. He has a right to be insensitive if he wants without you trying to suppress his free speech. It has nothing to do what is going on with them at Q.

As far as Seeley is concerned, he seems to have a lot of problems and as someone pointed out, I am surprised that this hasn't come out earlier. He should not be coaching, but at the same time, I am a bit skeptical of any top athlete who pees their pants when they get yelled at.

1. I can't find one post I wrote to Ted or you saying I was in tears for these players. Can you please find it? No? Of course not.

2. I can't find one post I wrote to Ted or you suppressing your right to post or freedom of speech. Can you please find it? No? Of course not.

You make a point and when confronted, you then run from it, and then turn and attack from another angle. Keep it coming and I'll keep pointing out how wrong you are.

And I can't help but noting that you've made another completely ridiculous and insensitive remark: "I am a bit skeptical of any top athlete who pees their pants when they get yelled at." Are you skeptical that she's a top athlete? Or do you mean that top athletes can't get bullied? Do only less talented athletes urinate in their pants when they're scared? Or are you skeptical that it even happened? You are once again showing your true nature, diminishing and ridiculing a woman who was likely severely bullied.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

.....
And I can't help but noting that you've made another completely ridiculous and insensitive remark: "I am a bit skeptical of any top athlete who pees their pants when they get yelled at." Are you skeptical that she's a top athlete? Or do you mean that top athletes can't get bullied? Do only less talented athletes urinate in their pants when they're scared? Or are you skeptical that it even happened? You are once again showing your true nature, diminishing and ridiculing a woman who was likely severely bullied.

proof?

someone who waits this long to report something
pees in their pants

sounds like someone with emotional problems that go back before she ever played hockey for this guy, and is looking for someone to foot the bill

but that doesn't change the fact this guy should not be coaching

Trillium. Fantastic post. I'm with you, in that the most important skill set a coach has is the ability to effectively communicate to an audience. That means both one on one with players, to the whole team and to prospective recruits. The ability to adapt your message based on situation/audience is of the utmost importance. IMHO One of the most important aspects of coaching players at the varsity college level is to prepare them for success in life. This means the ability to deal with both success and failure. It is easy to get caught up in the "the measure of success is a good win loss record". There are many other measures of success. As a matter of fact, if you have a win at all cost approach, and end up with players who do not how to deal with disappointment and failure, then you may have failed as an educator.

I think if you looked at it, you'd see that the best programs are also doing the best at helping the girls become women. Great coaches don't teach to win, the teach their athletes to be winners. The wins come as a result.

in a different direction:
If a coach of a male team was upset that one or more of his players was hitting the bars and going to parties chasing girls and said something to them in hopes of modifying their behavior most would applaud the coach. The same is true if the coach thought they were spending too much time with their girl friend. But there is a double standard in our society. The sex life of a woman is considered private. You can’t go there.

go ahead, flame away

 

[PuckRush]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

proof?

someone who waits this long to report something
pees in their pants

sounds like someone with emotional problems that go back before she ever played hockey for this guy, and is looking for someone to foot the bill

but that doesn't change the fact this guy should not be coaching

She reported it in February 2004 to the President of Clarkson. Go to the article, you will see the PDF's of the letter.

 

[joecct]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Needless to say, I think Mr. Seeley is going to have a hard time coaching NCAA women again. That is good.

 

[Rightnut]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

1. I can't find one post I wrote to Ted or you saying I was in tears for these players. Can you please find it? No? Of course not.

2. I can't find one post I wrote to Ted or you suppressing your right to post or freedom of speech. Can you please find it? No? Of course not.

You make a point and when confronted, you then run from it, and then turn and attack from another angle. Keep it coming and I'll keep pointing out how wrong you are.

And I can't help but noting that you've made another completely ridiculous and insensitive remark: "I am a bit skeptical of any top athlete who pees their pants when they get yelled at." Are you skeptical that she's a top athlete? Or do you mean that top athletes can't get bullied? Do only less talented athletes urinate in their pants when they're scared? Or are you skeptical that it even happened? You are once again showing your true nature, diminishing and ridiculing a woman who was likely severely bullied.

OK - either you are trolling or really are just way out there. I'm apparently not smart enough to figure that one out. But I'll give it one last try. I haven't changed my point at all. Every one of your posts attacks someone for making "insensitive" remarks. Boo hoo. You apparently are the sensitivity police. You attack because they voice their opinion, which is apparently contrary to yours. You come riding in on your white horse to protect the alleged victims of Seeley's alleged bullying from the "horrifying" words on this message board. Get off your high horse. What is it with you and this issue? Do you know any of these women? Why can't I be skeptical about some story of some woman claiming to be so scared she peed her pants? You say that I show my true nature "diminishing and ridiculing a woman who was "likely" bullied. There you have it. "Likely?" You don't know. I don't know. You were probably first in line protesting at U of Virginia to get rid of that fraternity where the alleged gang rape occurred which was so explicitly written up in that bastion of journalism known as the Rolling Stone. How did that turn out? Or at Duke? You asked in one of your posts what have we learned? We have learned to be skeptical until the full facts come out. Some newspaper article presenting one side of the story is not sufficient. So enough with your whining about people not buying into this story until the facts come out. If the facts come out, and they are as you claim, shame on Clarkson, Q and Seeley. But it won't change the fact that Ted Knight or anyone, should voice their opinions and I will continue to believe that none of the women involved give a crap what he or any of us say about it here. See how that nicely came back around to my original point?

 

[SamB]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

If a coach of a male team was upset that one or more of his players was hitting the bars and going to parties chasing girls and said something to them in hopes of modifying their behavior most would applaud the coach. The same is true if the coach thought they were spending too much time with their girl friend. But there is a double standard in our society. The sex life of a woman is considered private. You can’t go there.

[/B]

But a woman is a 'slut' but a man is well just being a man. your response or justification to Seeley's calling her a slut does not hold any weight. This is not a double standard, it is just wrong.

 

[shelfit]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

[/B]

But a woman is a 'slut' but a man is well just being a man. your response or justification to Seeley's calling her a slut does not hold any weight. This is not a double standard, it is just wrong.

It's difficult no matter how you look at it. On one hand their personal lives are nobody's business but their own, male or female. On the other hand if their personal lives start to have a negative impact on the team and the team's respectability or reputation in the athletic department and school it becomes a team issue that the coach is forced to address. For example when a hockey party gets our of hand and local neighbors complain to the school president or athletic director the coach gets called to make sure it doesn't happen again and if it does the coach is called on the carpet, so he/she is responsible for how the players behave in their personal lives in a situation like that. When that line gets crossed it's always difficult for everyone concerned. Either way it doesn't sound like this moron handled himself with any level of professionalism or respect to his players. Good to see another pig be forced out of the game just like the former OSU coach.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

[/B]

But a woman is a 'slut' but a man is well just being a man. your response or justification to Seeley's calling her a slut does not hold any weight. This is not a double standard, it is just wrong.

always fun to see the wide variety of reading comprehension ability on this forum

 

[shelfit]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

always fun to see the wide variety of reading comprehension ability on this forum

It's either reading comprehension or reading ability. No such thing as reading comprehension ability.

 

[PuckRush]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

OK - either you are trolling or really are just way out there. I'm apparently not smart enough to figure that one out. But I'll give it one last try. I haven't changed my point at all. Every one of your posts attacks someone for making "insensitive" remarks. Boo hoo. You apparently are the sensitivity police. You attack because they voice their opinion, which is apparently contrary to yours. You come riding in on your white horse to protect the alleged victims of Seeley's alleged bullying from the "horrifying" words on this message board. Get off your high horse. What is it with you and this issue? Do you know any of these women? Why can't I be skeptical about some story of some woman claiming to be so scared she peed her pants? You say that I show my true nature "diminishing and ridiculing a woman who was "likely" bullied. There you have it. "Likely?" You don't know. I don't know. You were probably first in line protesting at U of Virginia to get rid of that fraternity where the alleged gang rape occurred which was so explicitly written up in that bastion of journalism known as the Rolling Stone. How did that turn out? Or at Duke? You asked in one of your posts what have we learned? We have learned to be skeptical until the full facts come out. Some newspaper article presenting one side of the story is not sufficient. So enough with your whining about people not buying into this story until the facts come out. If the facts come out, and they are as you claim, shame on Clarkson, Q and Seeley. But it won't change the fact that Ted Knight or anyone, should voice their opinions and I will continue to believe that none of the women involved give a crap what he or any of us say about it here. See how that nicely came back around to my original point?

You say, "if the facts come out, and they are as you claim, shame on Clarkson, Q and Seeley.". Here's my answer: "And shame on you too."

You have called the Quinnipiac players "whiny", dismissed them with a "boo hoo" about their problems, and said you are skeptical about the Clarkson players' stories. I'm simply pointing out to you that if the allegations are true, that you are saying some pretty insensitive things.

Please note that in a story today, the AD for Quinnipiac said that the player surveys about Seeley were "terrible" (they do the surveys annually it seems) and that he was made aware after he hired Seeley, that there were also problems at Clarkson. Here's the kicker: He said, “Obviously if we knew what is being alleged, then [the hiring] just wouldn’t have happened.”

It sounds like the AD is treating these stories pretty seriously. But you just want to keep calling out the players.

 

[L268]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

"I think if you looked at it, you'd see that the best programs are also doing the best at helping the girls become women. Great coaches don't teach to win, the teach their athletes to be winners. The wins come as a result."

+1